Bonaventure

Quaestio II. Utrum ad susceptionem ordinis necessarius sit usus rationis.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum ad susceptionem ordinis necessarius sit usus rationis. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia nobilius et perfectius Sacramentum est Sacramentum ordinis quam Sacramentum matrimonii, et in altiori statu ponit; sed Sacramentum matrimonii non potest a furiosis et ratione carentibus contrahi, sicut expresse habetur infra¹: ergo etc.

2. Item, hoc videtur per formam: quia nullus offert aliquid non intelligenti; sed in ordine dicit ordinans ordinato: «Accipe potestatem» etc.: ergo praesupponit in eo discretionem. Si ergo non habet discretionem, non videtur ordinem posse suscipere.

3. Item, usus istius Sacramenti nulli potest competere nisi habenti rationis usum: ergo si alii datur, frustra datur: ergo si «Deus nihil frustra facit²», videtur, quod ei qui non habet rationis usum, nunquam Sacramentum ordinis conferatur.

4. Item, si quis offerret potestatem recusanti, non esset ibi potestatis susceptio, quoniam, sicut se habet collatio ad voluntatem dantis, ita susceptio ad voluntatem suscipientis: ergo si dans non dat, nisi velit et intendat, suscipiens non suscipit, nisi velit et intendat.

5. Item, tempus et aetas determinantur in susceptione ordinis distinctione septuagesima septima³; sed hoc non est propter aliud nisi propter discretionem et usum rationis, qui non habetur in minoribus annis: ergo etc.

6. Item, sacris ordinibus de necessitate est annexa continentia; sed nullus obligatur ad continentiam, nisi usum habeat rationis, et per consensum propriae voluntatis: ergo saltem ad sacros ordines nullus potest ante annos discretionis promoveri⁴: ergo necessarius est usus rationis.

Contra: 1. Alia Sacramenta, quae imprimunt characterem, ut baptismus et confirmatio, ante usum rationis dari possunt: ergo videtur pari ratione, quod et istud Sacramentum.

2. Item, hoc ipsum videtur, Extra, de Clerico ordinato per saltum⁵, ubi dicitur, quod infra annos discretionis ad minores ordines est promotus, et post sine iteratione concessum est ei in huiusmodi ministrare.

3. Item, sacerdoti, quando ordinatur, dantur claves ligandi et solvendi, etiam si sacerdos scientia careat⁶: ergo multo fortius puero dari poterit ordo, si careat usu rationis.

4. Item, si aliquis timore mortis compulsus ordinari patiatur et malit ordinari quam mori, est ordinatus, sicut et in baptismo manifeste potest ha-

beri⁷: ergo sufficit voluntas coacta: ergo non est necessarium, quod libere consentiat: ergo non videtur necessaria aetas.

5. Item, sapientis est respicere non tantum praesens, sed etiam quod futurum est⁸: ergo si multi carent discretione, de quibus praesumitur, quod aliquando sint discreti; videtur, quod saltem ordo possit eis committi, et exsecutio maneat in suspenso.

6. Item, si aliquid ex parte suscipientis esset necessarium in ipsa ordinatione, oporteret, quod saltem consensum suum exprimeret, et quod ab eo requireretur, sicut fit in matrimonio; sed hoc modo non fit in ordine: ergo non videtur, quod sit necessarius consensus, ergo nec usus rationis.

Conclusio.

Ad septem ordinum susceptionem non requiritur usus rationis necessitate Sacramenti, sed necessitate sive praecepti, sive congruitatis.

Respondeo: Ad hoc dicunt aliqui, quod ad ordinum omnium susceptionem requiritur rationis consensus, pro eo quod in quolibet ordine officium committitur respectu actus eliciti⁹ a ratione; et officium nulli committitur, nisi ei qui vult recipere: et ideo dicunt, quod usus rationis requiritur in ordinato, alioquin nihil omnino fit. — Sed tamen illud videtur esse contrarium decretali de Clerico per saltum ordinato, ubi tangitur, quod ad minores ordines infra annos discretionis promotus est. Amplius, tota die videmus, parvulos ad ordines minores promoveri, qui nec sciunt, quid sit ordo, nec quid ibi detur. Et iterum, usus confirmationis non est ante adultam aetatem, et tamen Sacramentum dari potest.

Et ideo est alia opinio maiorum, quod ad aliquid¹⁰ usus rationis requiritur de necessitate Sacramenti, ad aliquem ordinem de necessitate praecepti, ad aliquos de honestate et congruitate. Ad episcopatum namque, quoniam ibi contrahitur matrimonium spirituale, necessario requiritur consensus, sine quo non fit matrimonium, nec spirituale nec corporale, ut infra¹¹ videbitur; ac per hoc necessario requiritur usus rationis et discretionis de necessitate Sacramenti, licet multa alia requirantur de necessitate praecepti. — Ad ordines vero sacros requiritur rationis usus de necessitate praecepti, pro eo quod ad illos ordines non debent admitti, nisi qui possunt ad continentiam obligari; et ideo qui ordinant scienter eos qui non possunt obligari, quia ratione carent, faciunt contra statutum et praeceptum Ecclesiae; et ideo, si tales ordinantur exterius, characterem recipiunt de facto, quia non contradicunt, quamvis non consentiant¹². — Ad minores vero ordines requiritur de honestate rationis usus, quia ibi committuntur officia, quae spectant non solum ad habentes usum rationis, immo etiam ad habentes scientiam litteraturae. Sed tamen, quia illi ordines sunt ad quandam assuefactionem; ubi ex aliqua utilitate vel necessitate videtur expediens, possunt ad minores ordines promoveri etiam ante annos discretionis. Sed quod ita passim promoveantur et beneficiis ecclesiasticis ditentur, vix potest esse sine contemptu canonum et scandalo hominum et periculo animarum. — Concedendae igitur sunt rationes ostendentes, quod non est necessarius usus rationis ad Sacramenti esse vel suscipere, sed solum quantum ad bene esse et digne suscipere, loquendo de ordinibus proprie.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur de matrimonio, dicendum, quod non est simile: quia in matrimonio non requiritur usus rationis propter dignitatem Sacramenti, sed propter significationem coniunctionis Dei et animae, quae non est nisi in mutuo consensu. Praeterea, non concludit hoc generaliter de Sacramento ordinis, sed solum de dignitate episcopi¹³.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod dicit: Accipe; dicendum, quod illa oblatio significat magis imperium et potestatem dantis quam exercitationem suscipientis¹⁴. Unde illius non tantum est offerre, sed conferre; et nisi sit obex contrariae voluntatis, ita quod omnino sit invitus, recipit Sacramentum, secundum quod iudicatur de Sacramento confirmationis.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de usu, dicendum, quod etsi non habeat statim usum, quia tamen speratur aliquando habere, non frustra datur Sacramentum¹⁵, sicut etiam datur sacerdotium ei qui longo post tempore differt celebrare.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de recusante, dicendum, quod hic est sophisma consequentis¹⁶: recusans non recipit: ergo oportet, quod recipiens

consentiat; quia medium est inter recusantem omnino et consentientem.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de tempore et aetate, dicendum, quod determinatio illa temporis non est quantum ad Sacramenti necessitatem, sed potius quantum ad susceptionis congruitatem et solemnitatem; quam in maioribus ordinibus oportet servari, saltem quantum ad annos discretionis, propter votum continentiae et ordinum dignitatem; ulterior vero protelatio temporis quantum ad sacerdotes quantum ad tempora moderna non exigitur, quia, sicut in multis «malitia supplet aetatem¹⁷», ita in multis bonitas et sanctitas supplet. Praeterea, multi nunc ordinantur, qui non praeficiuntur populo, ut religiosi; ideo non oportet in eis ita servare tempora, ut in aliis, maxime si sit sanctitas vitae et scientia et maturitas morum.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur de continentia, iam patet responsio; nam continentia est in sacris ordinibus non de esse, sed de bene esse¹⁸.

---

Question II. Whether the use of reason is necessary for receiving an order.

In the second place it is asked whether the use of reason is necessary for receiving an order. And that it is, seems [to follow]:

1. Because the Sacrament of order is a nobler and more perfect Sacrament than the Sacrament of matrimony, and places [one] in a higher state; but the Sacrament of matrimony cannot be contracted by the insane and by those lacking reason, as is expressly had below¹: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, this seems [to hold] by [reason of] the form: because no one offers something to one who does not understand; but in [conferring] an order the ordainer says to the ordained: "Receive the power," etc.: therefore he presupposes discretion in him. If therefore he does not have discretion, he does not seem able to receive the order.

3. Likewise, the use of this Sacrament can belong to no one except to one having the use of reason: therefore if it is given to another, it is given in vain: therefore if "God does nothing in vain²," it seems that upon one who does not have the use of reason the Sacrament of order should never be conferred.

4. Likewise, if someone were to offer power to one refusing it, there would be no reception of power there, since, just as the conferral stands to the will of the giver, so the reception [stands] to the will of the receiver: therefore if the giver does not give unless he wills and intends, the receiver does not receive unless he wills and intends.

5. Likewise, the time and age are determined for the reception of an order in distinction seventy-seven³; but this is not on account of anything else except on account of discretion and the use of reason, which is not had in the lesser years: therefore etc.

6. Likewise, to the sacred orders continence is of necessity annexed; but no one is bound to continence unless he has the use of reason, and through the consent of his own will: therefore at least to the sacred orders no one can be promoted before the years of discretion⁴: therefore the use of reason is necessary.

On the contrary: 1. The other Sacraments which imprint a character, such as baptism and confirmation, can be given before the use of reason: therefore it seems by parity of reasoning that this Sacrament [can be given] too.

2. Likewise, this very thing seems [to hold from] the Decretals, On the Cleric ordained by a leap⁵, where it is said that within the years of discretion he was promoted to the minor orders, and afterwards, without reiteration, it was granted to him to minister in such [orders].

3. Likewise, to a priest, when he is ordained, are given the keys of binding and loosing, even if the priest lacks knowledge⁶: therefore much more strongly can an order be given to a boy, [even] if he lacks the use of reason.

4. Likewise, if someone, compelled by fear of death, should allow himself to be ordained and prefer to be ordained rather than to die, he is ordained, just as also in baptism can manifestly be had⁷: therefore a coerced will suffices: therefore it is not necessary that he freely consent: therefore the age does not seem necessary.

5. Likewise, it belongs to the wise man to regard not only the present, but also what is future⁸: therefore if many lack discretion, of whom it is presumed that they will at some time be discreet; it seems that at least the order could be committed to them, and its execution remain in suspense.

6. Likewise, if something on the part of the receiver were necessary in the ordination itself, it would be required that he at least express his consent, and that it be required of him, as is done in matrimony; but in this manner it is not done in [conferring] an order: therefore it does not seem that consent is necessary, and therefore neither the use of reason.

Conclusion.

For the reception of the seven orders the use of reason is not required by necessity of the Sacrament, but by necessity either of precept or of fittingness.

I respond: To this some say that for the reception of all the orders the consent of reason is required, for the reason that in every order an office is committed with respect to an act elicited⁹ by reason; and an office is committed to no one except to him who wills to receive it: and therefore they say that the use of reason is required in the ordained, otherwise nothing at all is done. — But nevertheless that seems to be contrary to the decretal On the Cleric ordained by a leap, where it is touched upon that he was promoted to the minor orders within the years of discretion. Furthermore, all day long we see little children promoted to the minor orders, who neither know what an order is, nor what is given therein. And again, the use of confirmation is not before adult age, and yet the Sacrament can be given.

And therefore there is another opinion of the greater [masters], that for something¹⁰ the use of reason is required by necessity of the Sacrament, for some order by necessity of precept, for some [orders] by [reason of] honesty and fittingness. For to the episcopate, since therein a spiritual matrimony is contracted, consent is necessarily required, without which no matrimony comes to be, neither spiritual nor corporeal, as will be seen below¹¹; and through this the use of reason and of discretion is necessarily required by necessity of the Sacrament, although many other things are required by necessity of precept. — But to the sacred orders the use of reason is required by necessity of precept, for the reason that to those orders none ought to be admitted except those who can be bound to continence; and therefore those who knowingly ordain those who cannot be bound, because they lack reason, act against the statute and precept of the Church; and therefore, if such are ordained outwardly, they receive the character in fact, because they do not contradict, although they do not consent¹². — But to the minor orders the use of reason is required by [reason of] honesty, because therein offices are committed which pertain not only to those having the use of reason, but even to those having a knowledge of letters. But nevertheless, since those orders are for a certain habituation; where from some utility or necessity it seems expedient, they can be promoted to the minor orders even before the years of discretion. But that they be thus promoted indiscriminately and enriched with ecclesiastical benefices can scarcely be without contempt of the canons and scandal of men and peril of souls. — The arguments, therefore, showing that the use of reason is not necessary for the being or the receiving of the Sacrament, but only as regards the well-being and the worthy receiving, are to be granted, speaking of the orders properly.

1. To that which is objected concerning matrimony, it must be said that it is not similar: because in matrimony the use of reason is not required on account of the dignity of the Sacrament, but on account of the signification of the joining of God and the soul, which is not [effected] except in mutual consent. Furthermore, this does not conclude generally concerning the Sacrament of order, but only concerning the dignity of the bishop¹³.

2. To that which is objected, that it says: Receive; it must be said that that offering signifies rather the command and power of the giver than the exercise of the receiver¹⁴. Hence it belongs to him not only to offer, but to confer; and unless there be an obstacle of a contrary will, so that he be altogether unwilling, he receives the Sacrament, according as is judged concerning the Sacrament of confirmation.

3. To that which is objected concerning use, it must be said that even if he does not have the use immediately, since nevertheless it is hoped that he will at some time have it, the Sacrament is not given in vain¹⁵, just as the priesthood is also given to one who for a long time afterward defers to celebrate.

4. To that which is objected concerning the one refusing, it must be said that here there is a fallacy of the consequent¹⁶: the one refusing does not receive: therefore it is necessary that the one receiving consent; because there is a mean between one refusing altogether and one consenting.

5. To that which is objected concerning time and age, it must be said that that determination of time is not as regards the necessity of the Sacrament, but rather as regards the fittingness of reception and its solemnity; which in the greater orders must be observed, at least as regards the years of discretion, on account of the vow of continence and the dignity of the orders; but a further prolongation of time, as regards priests, as regards modern times, is not demanded, because, just as in many [cases] "malice supplies for age¹⁷," so in many goodness and sanctity supply [for it]. Furthermore, many are now ordained who are not set over a people, as religious; therefore it is not necessary in them so to observe the times, as in others, especially if there be sanctity of life and knowledge and maturity of character.

6. To that which is objected concerning continence, the response is already evident; for continence is in the sacred orders not of [their] being, but of [their] well-being¹⁸.

---